Submitting a STREP

1
Submitting a STREP

• Experiences from the first call
• Hedda Weber, Lenzing AG

2
Project Data

• Title Aerocellulose and its carbon counterparts
  porous, multifunctional nanomaterials from
  renewable resources
• Type STRP
• Priority 3-NMP
• Topic New knowledge-based higher performance
  materials for macro-scale applications
• Duration 3 years
• Consortium 10 Partners
• Budget 4 Mio , EU-contribution 2.3 Mio
• Applied for 5.5 Mio EU-contribution 3 Mio

3
Composition of the Consortium
4
The Co-ordinator

• The Company
• Lenzing AG situated in the Salzkammergut, Upper
  Austria
• producer of man-made cellulosic fibres (viscose,
  modal, lyocell)
• about 2500 co-workers (about 120 in RD)
• The Person
• Hedda Weber
• trained bio-organic chemist
• current position area manager in the Competence
  Centre WOOD and project leader (characterisation
  and exploitation of Lenzing's hemicelluloses)

5
Preparation of the proposal

• Start February 3, 2003 (deadline April 10, 2003)
• what we had
• the idea
• 3 partners from 2 countries
• a successful experiment
• a couple of proposals for other projects as
  examples
• we started writing the proposal 4 weeks before
  the deadline ( by that time we had 5 partners
  from three countries)
• shared responsibilities work programme P.
  Navard's group, the other parts Lenzing, from the
  partners we got one page proposals)
• two weeks before the deadline the consortium was
  complete
• all partners (except one) were very reliable and
  quick (for the one we simply guessed what was
  needed)
• one week before the deadline we checked what we
  had of the proposal with the BIT and got some
  important hints

6
Things I think Important

• well-structured and detailed proposal
• persuades reviewers and saves a lot of work
  during negotiations
• if you cannot meet one of the goals of the
  commission, explain why (ex. no partners from the
  candidate countries)
• your goals must be measurable (kg, , ....) (even
  if you are not sure to meet these goals)
• use no smaller font than 11pt and use graphics,
  pictures and so on (even if this costs you space)
• use all help you can get e.g. from your national
  contact point
• (competition is tough, e.g. there is very
  professional support available in Germany)
• use and follow the guides for proposers

7
Management Structure
8
Some remarks

• EU requires punctuality and precision from the
  proposers but does not necessarily live up to
  these expectations itself
• Submission
• financial guidelines were not available (they
  still are a draft by now)
• the electronic proposal tool became available 5
  days before the deadline but you needed a
  password, which was send by snail mail
• it took ages until the confirmation of successful
  submission arrived in Lenzing
• Reviewing
• reviewing was very fast
• notification of the result took quite long
• Negotiations
• CPF-editor not exactly user-friendly
• for the contract far more details required than
  expected (budget)
• Audit certificates
• chew-up a lot of management money
• number partly negotiable

9
Final Remarks

• We are lucky with our project officer
• she thinks our project is interesting
• she is not over-bureaucratic
• communication is good
• Altogether there are far more positive
  experiences than negative